Amos Quito:Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.

/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise. Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?

YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a birther, but:How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?

Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

[www.deviltronics.com image 250x250]

craig328 is a birther. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.

incrdbil:Consistant, strict constructionalist judges are what you want if you like individual freedom and respect of your rights. if you want tyranny, keep supporting idiot 'living document' progressives.

Satanic_Hamster:Amos Quito: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.

/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise. Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?

YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a birther, but:How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?

Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

[www.deviltronics.com image 250x250]

craig328 is a birther. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.

Aw, come on, plenty of insane people believe a couple of things that are correct

Satanic_Hamster:Amos Quito: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: This may come as a shock, but oral sex usually does not lead to births.

/Swallow

I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed otherwise. Or are you of the "conservative" thought that things that the Government should have the power to mandate that sex only be used for creation?

YOU SAID:

Satanic_Hamster: I know you're a birther, but:How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?

Sorry. I was ridiculing you for predicating your senseless statement with the "birther" accusation.

Now go play on your Satanic Exercise Wheel.

[www.deviltronics.com image 250x250]

craig328 is a birther. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.

Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

Satanic_Hamster:craig328 is a birther. It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact and should accurately label the veracity of all his beliefs.

Indeed? Hm. That's news to me.

You've tried the "birther" thing twice whilst posing your ridiculous non-sequitur question. I get that you don't appear to be able to string together two coherent thoughts consecutively but your original idiotic question (How do you explain them thinking that the Government has the power to incarcerate a married couple if it can be proven then had oral sex in their own bedroom?) is your own strawman fantasy...not mine. In fact, your "question" has so little to do with reality that I'd venture to guess that since it'd be too difficult to actually imagine someone being as terminally stupid as you're portraying yourself to be that you're actually trolling here.

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage. You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage). Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt. I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from. You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.

This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.

So you're done then? I mean, what...that's the extent of your debate? Toss out some bombast about being contemptuous of contrary opinions hoping to address someone who can't detect that you're an intellectual flyspeck?

I'm fairly well versed in "my Constitution", your advice not withstanding. I'm also well aware of the legal difference between commission and omission which is pretty much what your Google-fu'd quoted case from Colorado was all about...and that that case has practically zero relevance to Prop 8 in the points of law which the SCOTUS will rightfully be considering.

But while we're discussing the Constitution here, how about you go educate yourself on what it is that constitutes a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment and why it might be a little problematic granting such status to a group based solely on a verbally expressed preference. I mean, once you discover what a protected class is, expand your horizons a little and discover the groups that currently enjoy that status and be amazed to further discover that practically none of them are due to the members of that class voluntarily proclaiming their status.

I'm sure that'll keep you away from the paint chips and paste jar for awhile.

ghare:incrdbil: Consistant, strict constructionalist judges are what you want if you like individual freedom and respect of your rights. if you want tyranny, keep supporting idiot 'living document' progressives.

Ahh, the Party of Stupid representative has awoken.

I've never been a supporter of the "living document" philosophy. Every time I've heard someone use the term it is in relation to interpretation of the Constitution, and not in relation to amending.

Satanic_Hamster:Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat. What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct". Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct. We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals. Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you". California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level. Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law. That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage. You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage). Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt. I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from. You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.

This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.

So you're done then? I mean, what...that's the extent of your debate? Toss out some bombast about being contemptuous of contrary opinions hoping to address someone who can't detect that you're an intellectual flyspeck?

I'm fairly well versed in "my Constitution", your advice not withstanding. I'm also well aware of the legal difference between commission and omission which is pretty much what your Google-fu'd quoted case from Colorado was all about...and that that case has practically zero relevance to Prop 8 in the points of law which the SCOTUS will rightfully be considering.

But while we're discussing the Constitution here, how about you go educate yourself on what it is that constitutes a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment and why it might be a l ...

We wouldn't need to label people in a "protected class" if we would stop denying the rights and freedoms this country was founded on to people some consider "Evil" and "Destructive" because they happen to be attracted to the same sex more than the opposite sex.

craig328:Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat. What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct". Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct. We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals. Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you". California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level. Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law. That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

"Just as you can't have sexual relations with animals who cannot give consent and are not human beings, we won't allow you to marry the consenting human being that loves you and you love in return. We the people who have all the rights we want decide what rights you're allowed to have. Separate but equal worked fine for blacks, it'll work fine for you as well. You see, you can marry whoever you want IF THEY'RE THE SAME GENDER AS YOU, just like once you could marry anyone you wanted AS LONG AS THEY WERE THE SAME SKIN COLOR AS YOU. Perhaps one day we'll also decide that you can marry whoever you want "IF THEY'RE THE SAME HEIGHT AS YOU / HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF FRECKLES AS YOU / HAVE THE SAME MISSING LIMBS AS YOU / ARE THE SAME IQ AS YOU. Why do you all keep demanding to be given special rights and freedoms? Don't you know marriage isn't a right in America? We gave you "civil unions", why can't you be perfectly happy with that and stop tormenting the poor Christians whose special word you're trying to mock and destroy by your very existence?"

Keizer_Ghidorah:craig328: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat. What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct". Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct. We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals. Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you". California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level. Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law. That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

"Just as you can't have sexual relations with animals who cannot give consent and are not human beings, we won't allow you to marry the consenting human being that loves you an ...

Amos Quito:Keizer_Ghidorah: craig328: Satanic_Hamster: Amos Quito: Can you show me where, in the US, TODAY, married couples can be "incarcerated" for having "oral sex in their own bedroom", as you stated above?

I'll judge the validity of your "birther" accusation based on your reply.

No, but your champions of Conservative Tradtionalist Judges, Scalia and Thomas, are on record as thinking that the government does and should have the power to do so.

Bullshiat. What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct". Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct. We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals. Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you". California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level. Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law. That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

"Just as you can't have sexual relations with animals who cannot give consent and are not human beings, we won't allow you to marry the consenting human being ...

What's that smell?

"Bullshiat, herp dee derp".

Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.

craig328:Bullshiat. What Scalia has said, and rightfully so, is that "I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible - murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals - and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct". Unfortunately, he's absolutely correct. We have laws against murder, polygamy, bestiality and cruelty to animals. Those laws exist because the community and/or society that proposed and adopted those laws did so on the basis of conduct reprehensible to the majority.

You may not like it and may not agree but just as we tell people "you can have sexual relations...you just can't have them with dogs" we (in the case of the instance before the court, the people of California) can also figuratively say "you can get married...you just can't get married to someone of the same gender as you". California has even gone to the extent of crafting a civil union law (prior to Prop 8) which is pretty much the equivalent to marriage at the state level. Prop 8 only happened when Gavin Newsome decided to tell the rest of the state to fark off and started issuing marriage licenses illegally in San Francisco in violation of the law. That pissed people off and that's why there was even a Prop 8 and why the majority of voters in California voted for it.

What, exactly, is bullshiat? Are you forgetting the sodomy ruling from a few years back? The case of Texas Vs. Anal Sex?

No, I'll admit I'm not the instant Google expert that you seem to be but to humor you, I had a glance.

I'll go ahead and understand that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground if you think a law explicitly forbidding governmental or judicial action to establish sexual preference as a protected 14th Amendment class is the same as the citizens of a state, via referendum, creating a legal definition of marriage. You'll think they're the same when the only thing comparable about them is the subject the actions surround (homosexual marriage). Congrats on your misplaced self-congratulatory contempt. I'm sure it nicely compliments your other likely odious personality flaws making you into the kind of person people like to measure distances from. You certainly manage to convey those qualities effectively enough in your scribbling anyway.

So, how about you go hump someone else's leg for awhile because I think we're done here.

This is the time you may want to redefine your constitution.

So you're done then? I mean, what...that's the extent of your debate? Toss out some bombast about being contemptuous of contrary opinions hoping to address someone who can't detect that you're an intellectual flyspeck?

I'm fairly well versed in "my Constitution", your advice not withstanding. I'm also well aware of the legal difference between commission and omission which is pretty much what your Google-fu'd quoted case from Colorado was all about...and that that case has practically zero relevance to Prop 8 in the points of law which the SCOTUS will rightfully be considering.

But while we're discussing the Constitution here, how about you go educate yourself on what it is that constitutes a "protected class" under the 14th Amendment and why it might be a l ...

Are you going for douche of the year? Do you not realize how stupid you sound when you try to lecture on protected classes as though you just discovered what they are in the context of the Romer decision?

Keizer_Ghidorah:Sorry I don't agree with you or anyone else who says that it's right to deny people the basic rights and freedoms everyone else gets because Christians and retards hate them for loving people of the same gender. Comparing it to bestiality was also quite the dipshiat move.

And that's why you fail. What the SCOTUS will do is to examine the California Prop 8 law and wording and see if it comports with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with your childish emotional tantrum or what you consider to be a "dipshiat" move. Just because you're incapable of objective thought without rampant emotion doesn't mean that everyone else shares that character flaw and is not the foundation of the laws of a civilized society. You look and act juvenile and childish by comparison.

Every single person has the same rights and every single person is constrained by the same restrictions. I can't legally fark a goat and neither can you. I can't legally have sex with a child and neither can you. I can get married and so can you and anyone else. I can't marry a person of my same gender and neither can you. See how that works? Just because you REALLY WANT to do something doesn't mean it ought to be legal...especially when society and the community to which we belong has laws that say "no". Some people REALLY WANT to fark goats and children. They're not allowed to. Where you fail so pathetically is in applying your emotional moral equivalency test to it. That has zero to do with anything but you're so intellectually stunted that you apparently can't even perceive the lack of application.

Californians amended their constitution through a legal means. Your throwing a fit over it not withstanding, what they did was entirely legal and proper and SHOULD have been what the gay community should have done IF they'd been interested in doing this correctly. But, as usual, they're a special interest who has no interest in getting practical sensible laws passed. No, they prefer legislation from the bench. Trouble is, this court has a conservative slant and, should their efforts fail, how far back do you think they'll set their own agenda?

The court is indicating they'll rule on a narrow front. Do you even understand what that signals? It likely means this court thinks there is no broad issue (whether gay marriage should be legal nationwide) at hand here. And if that's the case, do you even understand what THAT means? That would mean that a majority of the court doesn't see sexual preference as something that can be effectively crafted into a protected class under the 14th Amendment...and that means people ARE free to discriminate against it. Thinking further and in legal terms, how can you possibly try and craft a protected class based upon what a person claims? It's not about love, or fornication or religion or any other ridiculous emotional crap you can't seem to divorce your idiocy from.

It all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims. Other protected classes exist because they were being discriminated against on the basis of something anyone could discern at a glance: skin color, ethnicity, religious affiliation, physical disability and so on. No such situation exists when it comes to homosexuality. Further, protected classes sometimes argue for and get special treatment based upon their protection status. People with disabilities must be accommodated by law and hiring can be dependent upon disability status. Hell, the SCOTUS also has a case before it about affirmative action which is a set aside program based on skin color. The thing with sexual preference though is that I can't CLAIM to be black and I can't CLAIM to have a disability. You either have them or you don't. Not so with sexual preference. There is no test one can discern that says "you are straight but you are gay".

For example, let's say sexual preference does become a protected class and California passes a law saying that there needs to be equality in rental accommodations. I'm a straight guy and the apartment building I really want to get into has a vacancy. If there's a gay dude who also wants the apartment, I'm screwed, right? Wrong! I can simply claim I'm gay and >presto!< I get all the advantages of the protected class rental set aside law. And how do you prove that I'm not gay? Short answer is, you can't...and that's why it's ill suited to be classified as a protected class under the 14th Amendment. Black folks couldn't magically say "hey, I'm white" and be allowed admission to some schools in 1950's...so they needed a law that said that race is a protected class and you can't discriminate on that basis.

I'm going to go ahead and stop there because I'm pretty sure with your limited cerebral prowess that your head has either already exploded or you simply quit reading when you got to a big word...but this is the crux of the problem for the gay lobby. They want to be designated a protected class but unless they're willing to say being gay is a disability or the result of a genetic/medical condition, they really can't make that argument.

craig328:And that's why you fail. What the SCOTUS will do is to examine the California Prop 8 law and wording and see if it comports with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with your childish emotional tantrum or what you consider to be a "dipshiat" move. Just because you're incapable of objective thought without rampant emotion doesn't mean that everyone else shares that character flaw and is not the foundation of the laws of a civilized society. You look and act juvenile and childish by comparison.

Salt Lick Steady:Are you going for douche of the year? Do you not realize how stupid you sound when you try to lecture on protected classes as though you just discovered what they are in the context of the Romer decision?

Calm down, pumpkin. It's your trophy. Nobody wants to take it from you.

You keep thinking you are somehow informed as to what I know when clearly, you couldn't possibly have anything more than an atom of a clue. I'm a whole hell of a lot more informed about what a protected class is under the 14th Amendment than you appear to be. Listen, just because you read about a single court case which you (mistakenly) think validates your opinion on how this case should go doesn't apply to my knowledge, education and so on. Going from what you've dropped onto this thread, YOU don't understand what happened in that case and why...just that it turned aside an ill-considered pre-emptive roadblock to establishing a protected class.

I hate seeing such blatant stupid on display and although I think it'll be a wasted effort, let's list the existing protected classes under the 14th, shall we?Race, religion, color, national origin/ethnicity, disability status, veteran status, age, gender, familial status and genetic information. Those all have one common denominator that sexual preference does not: an objective test. This was discussed in Laderach v. U-Haul of Northwestern Ohio and Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist.

If gays can claim protection, based solely on association as a member of the gay class, then anyone can make the same claim and there are no standards of protection for any other protected class. How does one go about proving they are a member of a class that has no accurate definition and no criteria for membership? The slippery slope exists when other people group themselves together and begin to claim protected class status for the most frivolous of claims.

For example, if a person is the subject to same-sex attraction, but never acts out any of their feelings, is that person entitled to class protection as a "Gay?" What about the commonly argued situation where two people of the same sex live together but are not sexually involved at all. Are they also a member of this protected class of "Gays?" You think you have an answer to both of those questions, most likely, but that's not the standard that would need to be applied. There needs to be an objective test to determine whether a person is a member of a protected class when they wish to claim discrimination against the same. Amnesty Intern., USA v. Battle pretty well established that the person making a claim of discrimination must prove that they are a member of the protected class. In the case of being gay, what do you have someone do? Perform a sex act? Does that sound silly? How about YOU come up with a reliable objective criteria?

Salt Lick Steady:Are you going for douche of the year? Do you not realize how stupid you sound when you try to lecture on protected classes as though you just discovered what they are in the context of the Romer decision?

craig328:Every single person has the same rights and every single person is constrained by the same restrictions.

That's where you're wrong. This entire case is based upon the fact that gay people don't have the same rights as every other person. Straight people can marry, gay people cannot simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Gay people aren't asking to become a "protected class" in this case, they're simply asking not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They aren't asking for special privileges, they're asking for the same privileges as anyone else who isn't gay.

Salt Lick Steady:craig328: t all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims.

Why are you getting into protected class analysis? I mean, it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and the purpose of the question is plain, but....

The fact that you even asked that question just lowered my opinion of your IQ to new record lows. Congrats.

To answer though, let'shiat the argument in logical order (which you appear to need help with):

1./ In order to claim illegal discrimination, one must be a member of a protected class.2./ Gays arguing against Prop 8 claim that it is illegal because it discriminates against homosexuals.3./ Homosexuality is not a protected class.4./ Gays then advance the argument that sexual preference SHOULD be a protected class.5./ The courts (through precedence and plain old common sense) have said that someone claiming to be illegally discriminated against MUST prove that they are a member of the protected class.6./ This means that a definition of the protected class is necessary so that a reliable legal test can be performed pursuant to item 5.

So, since you appear to believe that sexual preference should be a class you cannot be legally allowed to discriminate against...what would your personal test be to determine who is gay and who is not? That WILL need to be established so that legal challenges to discrimination can be mounted in our court system, you know (which is the entire focus of this whole thing). So, in court, how shall we determine that the man who is claiming someone illegally discriminated against him (by say, saying he can't be married to another man, for instance) is actually a gay man? You can claim such. I can claim such. Verbal claims of inclusion to a class don't suffice as the courts have said many, many times already.

I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

CruiserTwelve:craig328: Every single person has the same rights and every single person is constrained by the same restrictions.

That's where you're wrong. This entire case is based upon the fact that gay people don't have the same rights as every other person. Straight people can marry, gay people cannot simply because they are gay and for no other reason. Gay people aren't asking to become a "protected class" in this case, they're simply asking not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. They aren't asking for special privileges, they're asking for the same privileges as anyone else who isn't gay.

Oh? Let's test this theory. Let's say I'm straight and you're gay. I can marry another person. I can marry a person who is not of the same gender as me. I cannot marry a person who is the same gender as me. I cannot marry a tree. I cannot marry a child. I cannot marry myself. I cannot marry a family member.

Those are the restrictions to my rights...and they're the restrictions to your rights as well. We both share the same rights and the same restrictions. What you find odious is that you want to do something that is banned and I do not.

What you WANT to do doesn't make it right. There are people who WANT to do all sorts of things that society has laws against. Their right to do those odious things are just as restricted as my right to do them. The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.

craig328:Salt Lick Steady: craig328: t all boils down to a request to create a protected class based on what a person claims.

Why are you getting into protected class analysis? I mean, it's obvious you're not a lawyer, and the purpose of the question is plain, but....

The fact that you even asked that question just lowered my opinion of your IQ to new record lows. Congrats.

To answer though, let'shiat the argument in logical order (which you appear to need help with):

1./ In order to claim illegal discrimination, one must be a member of a protected class.2./ Gays arguing against Prop 8 claim that it is illegal because it discriminates against homosexuals.3./ Homosexuality is not a protected class.4./ Gays then advance the argument that sexual preference SHOULD be a protected class.5./ The courts (through precedence and plain old common sense) have said that someone claiming to be illegally discriminated against MUST prove that they are a member of the protected class.6./ This means that a definition of the protected class is necessary so that a reliable legal test can be performed pursuant to item 5.

So, since you appear to believe that sexual preference should be a class you cannot be legally allowed to discriminate against...what would your personal test be to determine who is gay and who is not? That WILL need to be established so that legal challenges to discrimination can be mounted in our court system, you know (which is the entire focus of this whole thing). So, in court, how shall we determine that the man who is claiming someone illegally discriminated against him (by say, saying he can't be married to another man, for instance) is actually a gay man? You can claim such. I can claim such. Verbal claims of inclusion to a class don't suffice as the courts have said many, many times already.

I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

Wow. I wasn't even trying to rope a dope, I was just trying to get you to stop embarrassing yourself. Not your plans for the day apparently.

CruiserTwelve:craig328: The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.

So you're saying that, because YOU don't want to do these things nobody else should be allowed to do them. That's the very definition of discrimination.

Give me one single reason why gays should not be allowed to marry other than "because society has laws against it."

No, I never once said I didn't want them to marry. I'm keeping this debate as objective as possible. What I want is immaterial. This case is about what the people of California want. And yes, it is discrimination. However, you seem to be using the word discrimination as an automatic negative and it's not. We also have laws that discriminate against people who want to commit murder and mayhem, for instance. It may be a textbook definition of discrimination but nobody who's informed is debating that. The debate is really about whether the basis for this discrimination should be illegal.

As for "one single reason" what it sounds like you're saying is "one single reason that's acceptable and convincing to you" and, unfortunately for you, that's not the standard. The standard, whether you like and accept it or not, IS "because California has a legally enacted proposition against it".

craig328:CruiserTwelve: craig328: The difference is that they WANT to do them and I do not.

So you're saying that, because YOU don't want to do these things nobody else should be allowed to do them. That's the very definition of discrimination.

Give me one single reason why gays should not be allowed to marry other than "because society has laws against it."

No, I never once said I didn't want them to marry. I'm keeping this debate as objective as possible. What I want is immaterial. This case is about what the people of California want. And yes, it is discrimination. However, you seem to be using the word discrimination as an automatic negative and it's not. We also have laws that discriminate against people who want to commit murder and mayhem, for instance. It may be a textbook definition of discrimination but nobody who's informed is debating that. The debate is really about whether the basis for this discrimination should be illegal.

As for "one single reason" what it sounds like you're saying is "one single reason that's acceptable and convincing to you" and, unfortunately for you, that's not the standard. The standard, whether you like and accept it or not, IS "because California has a legally enacted proposition against it".

If you're willing to redefine murder laws as discrimination laws, you really have nothing to say. Just stop.

Salt Lick Steady:craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

lulz, and I would love to hear your solution for determining if that white man *really* thinks that nubian princess is hot or is just playing the genetic field. Holy christ you're dumb.

Dude, you're the instant Google expert here. I quoted you the appropriate precedent cases. You're either lazy or indolent enough that you don't bother to even try and borrow a clue. Your ignorance, however, doesn't change the fact that this case quite probably represents, at its core, a plea for creation of a new protected class.

Clearly, when you're out of ideas or even informed rebuttal you fall back on "rope a dope" and "you're dumb". Unfortunately for you, I already have children so I'm accustomed to this level of immaturity. Your vacancy of thought has been exposed more times than is worth recounting. Suffice to say, it's stale.

I'd urge you to inform yourself better but then I really don't care what you think of the issue. All along, I've described the legal landscape and practical and real challenges to what this case represents while you've been little more than a petulant, emotional toddler because you probably lack the ability to form a clear, logical progression of thought and never will. Don't take that the wrong way. The world needs people like you.

craig328:Salt Lick Steady: craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

lulz, and I would love to hear your solution for determining if that white man *really* thinks that nubian princess is hot or is just playing the genetic field. Holy christ you're dumb.

Dude, you're the instant Google expert here. I quoted you the appropriate precedent cases. You're either lazy or indolent enough that you don't bother to even try and borrow a clue. Your ignorance, however, doesn't change the fact that this case quite probably represents, at its core, a plea for creation of a new protected class.

Clearly, when you're out of ideas or even informed rebuttal you fall back on "rope a dope" and "you're dumb". Unfortunately for you, I already have children so I'm accustomed to this level of immaturity. Your vacancy of thought has been exposed more times than is worth recounting. Suffice to say, it's stale.

I'd urge you to inform yourself better but then I really don't care what you think of the issue. All along, I've described the legal landscape and practical and real challenges to what this case represents while you've been little more than a petulant, emotional toddler because you probably lack the ability to form a clear, logical progression of thought and never will. Don't take that the wrong way. The world needs people like you.

Robert Farker:craig328: I'm truly wanting to hear your solution for how do we tell a gay person from a straight person in a court of law. Go for it.

You could ask them. How do you tell what religion a person is if they don't practice openly? What if they switch religions?

YOU, amongst all the rest here, have finally asked a cogent question. To me, looking at it from the anti-Prop 8 side, THIS is where their argument needs to lie. Unfortunately though it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Religion was established as a protected class by Titles II and III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, considering the impetus at the time was the civil rights movement, the overwhelming interest was on race. Keep in mind, the Civil Rights Act was a mostly Republican piece of legislation (although backed by the Democrat president Johnson) and had little chance on passing if it were focused solely on race. It needed to be more broad based at the time to appeal to Catholics, Jews and such (recall that America's first Catholic president was assassinated just months before) and so garner more widespread support, especially in the North where there were substantial religious disparity.

Now, keep in mind that a test only comes up when there is a suit brought alleging discrimination on that basis. The law itself doesn't say "needs to be a test". Judges have to have one though to know whether a suit even broaches a fundamental threshold. Such suits are normally for things like access to public facilities and accommodations. However, even in 1964, there wasn't a real issue with, for example, motels not renting to orthodox Jews and such and a real case has never really been brought forward and so a solid test has never really been described.

Personally, I think this IS an angle the anti-Prop 8 folk need to explore but unfortunately there isn't a whole lot of supporting case precedent there. In fact, it was only in the past couple of years that a possible religious civil rights case was even filed. Felber v. Yudof (2011) claims that Berkeley University failed to take measures to protect against religiously motivated assault (Muslim students harassing and assaulting Jewish students on campus) and that case was really a first-of-its-kind case.

CruiserTwelve:craig328: This case is about what the people of California want. And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No. Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time. You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"? That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

CruiserTwelve:Salt Lick Steady: To nobody in particular: there exists an equal protection argument that has nothing to do with protected classes.

I agree. In fact, they are two distinctly separate arguments.

Not really. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment ("...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") is what provides the basis for the establishment of protected classes. They're different concepts but they're not really separable or even meaningfully need to be.

However, if anyone here thinks that a person is not enjoying the equal protection of the laws, I already answered Cruiser's question in that we both share the same rights and same restrictions. I'm straight and I can't marry a man either. Being gay isn't the determiner here. Gay man can't marry a man. Neither can a straight man. I can marry a woman. A gay man can marry a woman too (and over history, quite a few have).

There is no "one law for straight people and another law for gay people" here.

Corvus:Profedius: Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches...

I wasn't. Next time before responding read what the person was responding to instead of just jumping in and being an ass.

It would seem that the one having an emotional response in the discussion of this topic is you since you are at a point of reducing the discussion to name calling and character attacks. Improving understanding of the law and explaining a tactic where unfounded fear is used to influence the less enlighten in order to educate is not being an "ass" Where calling someone an ass and suggesting they shut up would qualify as displaying characteristics commonly associated with someone that would be considered an ass by the general population.

craig328:CruiserTwelve: craig328: This case is about what the people of California want. And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No. Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time. You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"? That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

You really are a farking retarded ape. Seriously trying to say that "Have you committed a crime, and if you have that may impact your chances of being hired by us because we're not sure we want someone who's committed a crime working for us" is the exact same thing as "You filthy queers can't marry each other because Jesus says so and I think it's icky" and using that as your defense of denying gays the same rights as others?

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because if you seriously believe the shiat that drips from your mouth that's incredibly sad.

Keizer_Ghidorah:craig328: CruiserTwelve: craig328: This case is about what the people of California want. And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No. Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time. You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"? That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

You really are a farking retarded ape. Seriously trying to say that "Have you committed a crime, and if you have that may impact your chances of being hired by us because we're not sure we want someone who's committed a crime working for us" is the exact same thing as "You filthy queers can't marry each other because Jesus says so and I think it's icky" and using that as your defense of denying gays the same rights as others?

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because if you seriously believe the shiat that drips from your mouth that's incredibly sad.

The fact that you can't discern that they're both instances of people discriminating spells you out as drooling cretin. Forget the fact that it was stated plainly and required only a grade schooler's grasp of context to understand. You have literally nothing left to hang your hat on debate-wise so you reach for something any idiot (who are clearly your intellectual superiors) could easily see just so you can be an insulting asshole. The only one of us to use the words "filthy", "queer", or "Jesus" here is you so far. Congrats.

How about you turn your attention to something you're good at? Talking to grown ups isn't on that list. Maybe go play with your Legos or something, hm?

craig328:We discriminate all the time. You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"? That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

Two responses to that. First there's a rational cause for wanting to know if a potential employee is a convicted felon, and second, the constitution applies to the government, not private employers. Since marriage is a government institution, the SCOTUS is currently deciding if discrimination against gay people by denying them the right to marry is consistent with the constitution.

You're arguing a different point. Private companies cannot discriminate against protected classes. That's not what this debate is about.

craig328:Keizer_Ghidorah: craig328: CruiserTwelve: craig328: This case is about what the people of California want. And yes, it is discrimination.

You seem to be saying that discrimination is acceptable as long as a majority of the people favor it. Would that accurately describe your position?

No. Let me say it clearly: discrimination is acceptable as long as it's not against a protected class or unless a law exists to define a group that may not be discriminated against but who aren't recognized as a protected class.

We discriminate all the time. You the place on the job application that asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony"? That's discrimination and that's entire legal.

You really are a farking retarded ape. Seriously trying to say that "Have you committed a crime, and if you have that may impact your chances of being hired by us because we're not sure we want someone who's committed a crime working for us" is the exact same thing as "You filthy queers can't marry each other because Jesus says so and I think it's icky" and using that as your defense of denying gays the same rights as others?

I sincerely hope you're just trolling, because if you seriously believe the shiat that drips from your mouth that's incredibly sad.

The fact that you can't discern that they're both instances of people discriminating spells you out as drooling cretin. Forget the fact that it was stated plainly and required only a grade schooler's grasp of context to understand. You have literally nothing left to hang your hat on debate-wise so you reach for something any idiot (who are clearly your intellectual superiors) could easily see just so you can be an insulting asshole. The only one of us to use the words "filthy", "queer", or "Jesus" here is you so far. Congrats.

How about you turn your attention to something you're good at? Talking to grown ups isn't on that list. Maybe go play with your Legos or something, hm?

That felon might steal property, destroy property, or cause injury or death to someone if hired, since the felon has already done it before. I'd hardly call that "discrimination".Two gay people marrying each other has caused... absolutely nothing negative in the entire course of recorded history.

So tell me, why should they be denied the same rights as everyone else? Answer: you can't. But you don't want them to have those rights because you're a bigoted asshole. You don't HAVE to say any of those words, because your stance and views says them for you. And it's extremely amusing and sad how you insist on trying the "Hurpa derpa doo you such a child because you talk mean to me" method of worming your way out of the debate. Weasel and ooze all you want, the fact oft he matter is you demand the discrimination and oppression of people because they don't meet your ass-backwards farktarded views. If you weren't you wouldn't be supporting denying them basic rights and freedoms that the country was founded upon.

So who's the real child here? At least I'm adult enough to not scream and throw hissy fits because two homos are doing something that has ZERO affect on me and demand they be treated as second-class sub-humans.